quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona.

a senator: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent it be done away with. proib without objection. mr. flake: within a matter of days our national debt will top $20 trillion mounting another milestone in our nation's addiction 0 to spending. how did we get here? a decade ago taxpayers learned that many of their representatives were economies skit in -- were complicit in a congressional earmarking. called a gateway drug by our distinguished former colleague from oklahoma, senator tom coburn, earmarks have long exacerbated the federal government's spending addiction. as old as the republic, earmarks have always been used by generations of politicians as currency to curry favor with special interests. as public outrage reached a

mass, both houses ended a pay to play culture in congress. in order to preserve this important check against the corrupting influence of earmarks, i recently sent a letter to president donald trump respectfully urging him to veto any legislation containing earmarks that reaches his desk. i'd like to thank my colleague, senator john mccain, mike lee, rand paul, ted cruz and ben sasse for cosigning this letter. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the following letter be submitted for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: to explain the urgency behind my letter to the president, i'd like to remind my colleagues in this body, many of whom were not in the congress before enactment of the moratorium, just how bad the earmarking epidemic became. for the uninitiated the term earmark is a euphemism for when lawmakers work to circumvent the regular, normal appropriations process in order to secure

special funding for projects in their home districts or their state. this resulted in federal tax dollars being doled out to members of congress on a whim, bypassing normal rigorous federal and public vetting. instead of focusing on oversight responsibilities or devising legislative solutions for the nation's most pressing challenges, lawmakers and staffers devoted thousands of man-hours toward filling earmark requests. congressional appropriators and appropriations committees transformed into what were termed favor factories, abandoning oversight responsibilities to focus on rationing out pork. to me, that was one of the most insidious parts of the whole earmarking era. we have oversight responsibilities here in congress, and there is a huge federal budget that we should be

providing oversight on. but instead of poring over agency spending and searching for waste in our budget, members of staff devoted countless hours to roughly 2% or 3% of the federal budget. there was so much focus on just doling out what represented 1% or 2% or 3% of the federal budget that we basically neglected the rest of the federal budget in terms of oversight. in less than 20 years the number of earmarks in the transportation bill alone grew from 152 to 6,300. president reagan, i believe, in 1988 famously said that he vetoed the highway bill because he hadn't seen that much pork, he said, since he handed out ribbons at the county fair. and there were 152 earmarks in the transportation bill that year.

by 2005 it was 6,300. that's an increase of more than 4,000%. examples of earmarks range from $250 million for a bridge to nowhere in alaska. everybody became familiar with that. $50 million for an indoor rain forest in iowa paid for by taxpayers across the country. $half a -- half a million dollars for a teapot museum. it was in this environment that along with a small group of like-minded colleagues i set out to put an end to this form of transactional politics that had infected the halls of congress. our mission was to place a permanent moratorium on congressional earmarks. it took unprecedented revelations of widespread corruption and illegality and ultimately the jailing of lawmakers, staffers and

lobbyists before the public's outrage forced congress to clean up its act. but even brazen instances of public corruption didn't stop congress from dragging its feet on reforms, and the majority -- the majority party, my party, paid the price at the polls in 2006. the dominant mood of the electorate at that time, that of a mistrust in government institutions, is strikingly reminiscent of the drain the swamp mentality that permeated last november's election. but despite this surging anti-insider sentiment across the ideological spectrum, there is now a chorus of lawrms -- lawmakers fromming both sides of the aisle working behind the scenes to lift the congressional earmark moratorium. these earmark defenders will trot out arguments ranging from constitutional prerogative to

the insignificance of earmarks relative to the entire federal budget. it's okay to earmark, they'll say. we're only earmarking 1% of the federal budget. but all of niece defenses ring hol -- but all of these defenses ring hollow. it is a fundamental duty to prevent the executive branch from wasting taxpayer dollars. by using earmarks to funnel billions of dollars to special interests, congress ceases to be a check on the executive branch. we've become no better than the free-spending bureaucrats that we rail against. now while we were ultimately successful in securing earmark bans in both the house and senate, today we're seeing far too many cracks in those foundations. with so many in congress now willing to sacrifice fiscal discipline, we have to remain vigilant against the return to business as usual. we can't afford to forfeit the

hard-fought progress that we've made. now the senate republican congress's vote early this year to revoke the earmark ban was an important step in the right direction, but we need to do more. that's why i sent the letter to president trump and it's why, should earmarks return, i intend to challenge each one of them here on the senate floor. just as i did in my time in the house, i will file amendments to force debate and force votes on these earmarks. that way members can publicly defend their earmarks to the hardworking taxpayers that they represent. as we look forward to the future, i've been encouraged by the president's recognition of washington's addiction to spending and his administration's commitment to finally doing something about it. i look forward to working with the administration to make the federal government leaner, more transparent and more accountable to the taxpayers it serves.

mr. president, i take the floor today to express my concerns with the border adjustment tax. the border adjustment tax is quickly becoming the centerpiece of a planned overhaul of our tax and trade policies. i'm certain that i'm not the only one hearing that this approach could make everyday consumer products more expensive at the very places that middle-class families shop the most. from the aisles at big-box stores to the checkout lines in grocery stores, household staples could be pushed out of reach for those who can least afford it. in addition, there are concerns that this new policy could disrupt global supply chains and make it harder for our country's largest private-sector employers to grow and to do business. there are those who suggest that the known down sides to the new tax will be a wash because the u.s. dollar will be stronger.

however, others are not so comfortable gambling the purchasing power of the average consumer on the unpredictability of international currency markets. at first glance, the plan seems simple enough. if you tax companies here in the united states less, -- tax companies here in the united states less and tax goods made overseas more, that seems simple. according to supporters, this would boost exports, incentivize companies to locate operations here in the united states and it would reduce our trade deficit. unfortunately, it turns out that that's not so easy. looking inward, we simply do not produce everything we need here in the united states. that's why we trade with other countries in the first place. and for the things that we do make here, those products often require inputs from all over the world. in fact, whether it's raw

material or specialty parts, roughly 50% of our nation's imports consist of inputs for u.s. production and manufacturing. let me say that again. roughly 50% of our nation's imports consist of inputs for u.s. production and manufacturing. many times for products that are then shipped back overseas. because of our trade deals with other nations, these inputs are cheaper than they would be otherwise. cheaper inputs mean lower production costs for u.s.-based businesses, which in turn allows these companies to expand production and to reduce prices. what will happen if we placed a 20% tax on all imports? looking beyond our borders, weecials -- we should also consider the reaction such a tax is sure to trigger amongst our

trading partners. if the protectionist trade policies of the past have taught us anything, it's that countries tend to retaliate when they believe trade obligations have been violated. when we increase barriers to trade, nobody wins. do i agree that we should work to make u.s. businesses more competitive? absolutely. do i agree that we need to reform our tax code? you bet. tax reform and progrowth trade policies have been at the top of my list of priorities throughout my tenure in congress, and i look forward to working with my colleagues to lower corporate and individual tax rates, eliminate costly tax earmarks and make our tax code flatter, simpler and more conducive to growth. there will always be winners and losers in a robust debate on reforming the tax code. we ought to make sure that the middle class isn't in the losing column.

i yield back the balance of my time. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, this week our colleagues in the house releaseed a plan to clean up a mess left in the wake of obamacare's failed promises. the bill known as the american health care act represents the

next step forward in keeping our promise to repeal and replace obamacare, which continues to fail texans and folks all across the country. instead of helping more americans and more texans by providing more health care choices, obamacare has actually led to dwindling insurance options in a lot of counties across the country. in fact, it's estimated that almost 40% of counties in texas have just one option on the exchange this year. it's hard to shop -- it's hard to compare, it's hard to get the benefits of competition when there's only one option because of obamacare. so that's actually the opposite of what the president and the advocates for the affordable care act promised. that's what happens when government interferes with the market and takes a

one-size-fits-all approach to our nation's health care the fact of the matter is that the path that president obama put us on is not sustainable, and it's hurting families and burdening job creators. and it's taking a tremendous toll and americans are paying the price. i know from some of our colleagues across the aisle who are relishing the fact that republicans, the majority, are now taking this step to keep our commitment to repeal and replace obamacare, they're sitting back and hoping that we fail. but the fact of the matter is, we would be having in debate no matter who won the presidency last november the 8th because obamacare is in a meltdown mode. it's unsustainable, and we'd be dealing with our broken health care system no matter who won the white house on november theth of last year.

-- on november the 8th of last year. one of my constituents wrote me earlier this year about her daughter. she said that before obamacare, back when she could choose the policy that she wanted, she was paying about $109 a month -- $190 a month for health insurance and she had a $500 deductible. well, that sounds pretty reasonable. not great, but not terrible either. then came obamacare. now her daughter, who unfortunately lost her job in the interim, must pay almost $400 a month with a deductible that's more than $6,000. now, i don't know many people that can write check for $6,000 when they have an unexpected health care crisis. and so, in essence, she is being forced to self-insure and been denied the benefit of even the insurance that she has, even though her premium has gone up more than double and, of course, her double is now $6,000.

so, to our friends across the aisle who seem to be relishing this moment where we are actually undertaking the hard work of working through a repeal and replacement program, i would say to them that obamacare is certainly no gold standard. it's the opposite of what we need to help our nation's health care woes, and there's no doubt that it's a failed piece of legislation, full of empty promises and one we have to scrap. so with the american health care act starting today in the house of representatives, we will repeal obamacare and deliver better, more affordable health care choices to the american people. this bill actually also improves medicaid. that's another big part of what obamacare did. it forced more people onto medicaid, which is frankly not

the best quality health care insurance or coverage that exists. i remember back during the obamacare debate, i actually introduced an amendment in the finance committee saying that if congress passed obamacare, that members of congress needed to be put on medicaid. my theory being, not that it was such great coverage but that if members of congress were on medicaid, we sure would take every step necessary to actually improve it and make sure it works. but this legislation actually does improve medicaid and puts it on a sustainable path for the future. by working with the governors -- because medicaid is a shared federal-state responsibility, but right now it's growing by leaps and bounds. it's a consumer medical inflation rate plus two, which means it's growing much faster than the economy. and, unfortunately, it's putting unprecedented burdens on our

state governments. for example, i have -- talking to some texas legislators, they say it's easily the second, a understand if they weren't -- and if they weren't carol, the largest expense item -- and if they weren't carol, the largest expense item in the texas state budget. medicaid was designed to help the most vulnerable 0 in our communities and enjoys brought, bipartisan support. along the way it women less about serving -- along the way, it became less about serving those who actually needed it and more about unchecked government spending, as i mentioned a momenting a. so what the the american health care act does, it actually puts medicaid on a budget. it doesn't cut current spending in medicaid. it just says it will grow at a slower rate and it sends much of the authority to work out the best health care delivery systems to our state governors and legislators.

it gives states more flexibility along the way so they can use resources to serve the specific needs of their citizens. i know in my state we frequently will come to washington and ask the health and human services and the center for medicare services, c.m.s., for a waiver so we can actually use the medicaid money to spend it most effectively. -- to build either a medical home or to deal with chronic diseases or some other flexibility we need in order to deliver quality health care to our constituents. but the gall of having to come to washington, d.c., and asking permission on how to spend your own money is just too much. so i believe actually the american health care act is the most significant entitlement reform in decades, and that's something we should all applaud. putting medicaid hon a more sustainable path, not continuing

to spend money that we don't have and rack up annual deficits anded a to our national debt -- and add to our national debt, which is now in the $20 trillion range, with no end in sight. both state and federal governments spend a significant amount of money in medicaid every year, and as i indicated last year nearly one-third of the texas budget was dedicated to medicaid. and the fact of the matter is, when the states have to spend so much of the money they tax and collect on medicaid, then it's unavailable for other important purposes: law enforcement, education, and the like. so there is a crowding out effect. so by responsibly reforming medicaid, the states and the federal government will benefit, all while helping medicaid wok for the most vulnerable in our country and putting us on a path to fiscal sustainability. in addition, entitlement reform, this bill will also get rid of the obamacare taxes that have led to hikes in premium costs,

fewer options for patients, and more red tape for job creators. i know being in tyler, texas, for example, back after obamacare passed and meeting with a woman who said she was forced to actually work two jobs because her employer laid her off of her full-time job, so as to come under the cap necessary for the obamacare employer mandate, and so literally this single mother had lost her full-time job because of obamacare and was forced to work two part-time jobs just to make up the difference in income. we will also in this american health care act eliminate the individual mandate. president obama said when he ran for office back in 2008 that he was opposed to penalizing the american people if they didn't buy government-approved insurance, but of course he changed his tune once he was

sworn into office, but we'll eliminate the individual mandate so that people who don't want to purchase a government-approved plan aren't forced to buy a plan they don't want and that they can't afford or else suffer a penalty. this bill will also help families spend money on health care decisions that make the most sense to them by giving them tools so they can manage their health care expenses like health savings accounts. so the american health care act is an answer to a promise that we made and we have made repetitively in the last three elections since obamacare became the law of the land, and i believe it's imperative that we keep our promise. some have said, well, this is a difficult process, and i agree. there is a lot of different ideas that people have, and i agree, and that's a good thing, but in the end we have a binary choice. we can either keep the status quo, which is in meltdown, which

is obamacare, or we can pass legislation which offers more choices at affordable prices to the american people. i believe the choice is very clear. it's a great opportunity to reform our health care system and medicaid and move health decisions away from washington and back to the families, back in the states where we all live and back in the hands of patients and their doctors. so i look forward to working with my colleagues and the trump administration to make this a reality. again, the choice is between the status quo, which is unacceptable, which is not working, or a better way. i, for one, choose a better way, more choices at a price consumers can afford. madam president, i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: madam president, i rise today to address the bill that has been recently -- and i emphasize the word recently -- introduced into the house of representatives. i believe it was introduced monday. it's having not a hearing but a markup today and may be on the house floor as soon as tomorrow or early next week. as the president said recently, health care is complicateed, and to me to introduce a bill that was not available to any members of congress before monday, mark it up in committee two days later and attempt to pass it on the floor of the house and then i understand it may come directly to the floor of the united states senate without any committee consideration, it just

seems to me is a disservice to the process and a disservice to the traditions and practices of this institution. this is complicated. it is difficult. the ramifications and implications of this bill, just as any other major change in our health care system, are incredibly important. this isn't about ideology. this is about people. this is about the impact on people. and i want to talk about the impact of this bill as we have thus far been able to assess it on the people of maine. when i look at a piece of legislation down here, i start with maine. how will it affect the people that live along our coasts or on the inland in the small towns and particularly people who are above the age of 50? maine happens to be the oldest state in the country. and therefore, anything which negatively impacts seniors

doubly negatively impacts the people of my state. and i feel that this bill is a disaster for seniors, and when i define seniors in this case as anybody over 50, because it does several things. one of the things it does -- and there should be a great deal of discussion about this -- under the affordable care act, which recognizes the fact that seniors and people who are older tend to have more medical needs than those who are younger, it says it caps the differential at three times. in other words, a -- a senior can only pay three times what a younger person pays, and even that is burdensome in many cases. this bill changes three to five. it will be a very substantial increase in the payments and the costs of insurance and health

care to senior citizens. now, the kaiser family foundation, which is, i find, the most nonpartisan and informative source of information on all of these issues, has created a handy tool on their web site where you can put in information such as family income and age and determine what you would have paid under the affordable care act and what you would pay under this new bill. what they found was -- i wanted to look and see what would somebody in my state pay. if you're a 60-year-old in arista county, maine, with an income of $30,000, the subsidy, the support for the premium for individual insurance would fall by 70%. the support for your insurance policy under the affordable care act would fall by 70%. throughout our state, the

average decrease would be 48%, almost half. so we are talking not about some theoretical ideological political thing here. we're talking about people's ability to afford health insurance. it's about as clear as it could be, and that's why it's frustrating to me that we're going to be asked to -- we collectively, the congress, is going to be asked to consider this bill with literally no hearings, no input from the public, no discussion of how all the pieces fit together or don't fit together, and yet we're going to be asked -- i believe, my understanding is we're going to be asked to vote on this bill sometime on the floor of the united states senate without any committee consideration in the next week or so. this is just too important to people's lives to give it such short shrift. it's just not right to make changes of this magnitude that

are so vital to people's well-being and literally their health and their survival in some cases that it's unthinkable to me that we would do this without a round of hearings and discussions and the regular order that we supposedly honor around here as to how major legislation is to come to the floor. i just got a letter just recently. hi, angus -- i like it when my correspondents say hi, angus, instead of senator. hi, angus, he says. i have worked in the pulp and paper industry for close to 30 years. it was a good industry up here, supported middle-class families in lower maine. but we have had layoffs and closures of our mills. after every closure, i had to obtain health insurance for my family on my own. before obamacare, this was a disaster. before obamacare, this was a

disaster. i could only obtain catastrophic insurance from one of two providers. there was no way i could pay $1,500 a month for a decent plan. after obamacare, i could obtain decent insurance at a decent price. while there may have been problems for some, it was a godsend for my family. please help ensure we don't go back to the old days. we're self-employed by our small business and would not be able to pay more for less. that's what the bill that's in the house would do, pay more for less. by the way, how does the money work in this bill? well, one of the things the bill does, is my understanding -- and again, i'm only operating on what we have seen in the last 24 hours because of no hearings, but one of the things it does is eliminate a tax on people who make over $250,000 a year in order to cut coverage for people

who aren't making that kind of money. it's a tax cut and shifting the cost to our citizens, particularly our seniors. the pattern is shift and shaft. shift the cost and shaft the people who need the coverage. this is supposed to be a substitute. it's supposed to be coverage for everyone. and you've got to be careful, madam president, when people talk about access, they're talking about, yeah, you can buy it, but if you can't afford it, that's not really access. and this bill dramatically decreases the support for health insurance premiums through the affordable care act. the reality is -- and i hear a lot of talk about how obamacare is collapsing. it isn't. more people signed up this year than last year.

yes, it's true the rates went up, but that was because younger people weren't signing up in significant numbers. we need to deal with that issue because that makes the risk pool older and sicker and therefore more expensive. but i have been told by insurance officials that if something like this bill that's in the house passes and the subsidies disappear and the affordable care act goes away, the private health insurance market for individuals, the so-called individual market, will essentially collapse. and the reality is that the uninsured population of this country has fallen virtually in half since the passage of the affordable care act. 22 million people have coverage now that didn't before. and we can take it away, and the other piece that i don't like about this home is it phases things out so that the impact won't be felt until after the

next election or sometime in the future. well, the future comes, and in this case the future is going to be pretty desolate for people that have health insurance now and aren't going to have it two, four, six years from now. it's just not right. i'm one who has been saying since i entered this body now four-plus years ago that there are problems with the affordable care act. we should be working on those problems. we should be working on repairing it, not destroying it. we should not be talking about taking health care coverage away from people in this country. i'm sure that i and many others will be addressing more comprehensively the provisions of this bill as it comes -- as it becomes more clear, even though we're going to have to ferret those provisions out because we're not going to have the benefit of expert testimony and views from a variety of

points of view of how this is actually going to work, but the reality is, madam president, i don't think there is much question that this proposal will hammer maine and my people, and i can't stand for that. i hope that the house will have a more vigorous process, they'll understand what the implications are and take a more judicious approach so that we're not tearing insurance out from under people, we're not going to make the costs be driven up, we're not giving a tax break to people that make over $250,000 a year and at the same time taking coverage away from people who make $30,000 a year. that's wrong. we should be repairing, not repealing. and i think this bill is not the

right place to start. i stand for the people of maine. i stand for the people who are going to be harmed by this, whether they are seniors or working people or self-employed people or people who have been able to start businesses because they could get for the first time insurance under the affordable care act. i believe that's our obligation here, and we have an opportunity to work together, and i'm willing to work with anyone who wants to work on improving and dealing with some of the issues that have been raised by the affordable care act, but let's stop talking about repealing. let's talk about fixing, strengthening and meeting our commitment to our fellow citizens in maine and across our country. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: the senate is not in quorum call. mrs. shaheen: all right. then i'm able to speak. thank you. madam president, on this international women's day, we celebrate the remarkable social, economic and political achievements of women around the world. but we also take stock of the barriers that continue to prevent hundreds of millions of women from contributing their talents as equal members of the human family. as in years past, this year i am again joining with senator susan collins to introduce a bipartisan resolution commemorating international women's day and highlighting its goal of advancing the equality and empowerment of women all across the globe. and i especially appreciate senator collins' unwavering support in working with me on

this resolution. it's been said that no nation can get ahead if it leaves half of its people behind, and in the 21st century, wherever women are respected and treated as equals, we excel, as the presiding officer knows, as legislators, as scientists, as entrepreneurs, artists, inventors, lawyers, and in every other field. but the harsh reality remains that women make up some 51% of the world's population, and yet we count for an estimated 70% of those living in poverty and two-thirds of those denied even a basic education. so on this international women's day, we celebrate women's achievements and we rededicate ourselves to achieving an equal voice, equal participation, and equal rights for all women.

we also acknowledge that we still have much difficult work ahead of us. research tells us that women and girls' equality can be transformational for their communities and for their entire countries. yet in some of the poorest parts of the world and even in some wealthier countries, women and girls continue to be held back by injustices such as child marriage, sexual and domestic violence, denial of education and lack of access to contraception and maternal health care. in recent years, we've learned more about the intersection of so many of these issues that affect women. when girls are forced into early marriages, when women are denied contraception and have children at a very young age, this typically ends any chance to gain an education and income-earning employment. and this lack of economic influence means that women remain powerless within their

families and too often within their communities. and this in turn can lead to violence against women and the denial of women's most basic human and civil rights. now the good news is that the same interconnectedness can work to empower women and to lift up communities. when women and girls' rights are respected, when we have access to education and family planning services, this unleashes women's ability to participate equally in the community, in the workplace, and even in the political arena. indeed, we can now quantify so many of the positive ripple effects. for example, each additional year of education increases a woman's income by 25%. and we know that children born to educated mothers are twice as likely to survive past the age of five. by mobilizing the talents of previously neglected half of the

population in too many places, we create more stable societies and more rapid economic development. now for decades the united states has been a world leader in advancing and protecting the rights of women and girls around the world, including their access to contraception and family planning. and in particular, i want to applaud the excellent work of the state department's global office -- office of global women's issues. i'm sponsoring legislation in this session to give this office permanent authorization with an ambassador leading it. however, on this international women's day, we must also acknowledge actions to abdicate america's leadership role in advancing women's rights. indeed both at home and abroad, the trump administration has exhibited a dangerous obsession with rolling back women's

reproductive rights. president trump has promised to nominate supreme court justices who will overturn roe v. wade. he has joined in pledging to terminate funding for planned parenthood with some of the republican leaders in congress. and in one of his first official acts, the president signed an executive order reinstating and expanding the mexico city policy, also known as the global gag rule. this rule prohibits u.s. financial aid to many international organizations that offer contraception and comprehensive family planning services to women. as if reinstatement of this policy weren't bad enough, the administration's executive order dramatically expanded the policy to apply to all u.s.-funded global health programs. not just family planning and counseling programs, but we believe that this expansion will

include our hiv-aids program, known as petfar, which has been so positive in saving so many lives in africa. it was started by george w. bush. we also think it will affect initiatives that fund the fights against the ebola and zika outbreaks. and this puts at risk 15 times more funding and millions more women and their families around the world. now taken together, all of these actions by the new administration, i believe amount to an assault on the safety and well-being of women and girls across the globe. i've joined with senator susan collins, senator lisa murkowski and 45 other senators in introducing bipartisan legislation to permanently repeal the global gag rule. i believe -- and it's well documented -- that this is a misguided policy that ignores

decades of research. we shouldn't allow extreme ideology to triumph over the urgent practical needs of women across the world. the facts make clear that when family planning services are accessible and contraceptives are affordable, rates of unplanned pregnancies and abortions go down. according to the world health organization, there are an estimated 225 million women in the world who would like access to family planning services. and we know that makes a difference. here in the united states the abortion rate has dropped to the lowest level since 1943, a success that is directly attributable to the reduced cost-sharing for contraception under the affordable care act. i can attest to that because in new hampshire, we have one of the lowest incidents of teen pregnancy in the country.

now in january, we saw millions of women, men, and children turn out for marches in washington, in new york, in london, nairobi, tokyo, and my home capital of concord, new hampshire; and in dozens of other cities across the country and across the world. i think we can look at that as an early celebration of international women's day, because what we heard from those marching was that we were marching in defense of the rights of american women, of muslim women, of women of color, and of all women and girls across the globe. and the world heard our message loud and clear. we will not allow our reproductive rights and our human rights to be taken away. we will not allow women to be targeted for discrimination. we will not be taken backward. that's our message in january, and it is our message on this international women's day.

we have fought long and hard for equal rights and equal treatment here in the united states, and on this day of celebration and solidarity -- and we are also celebrating women here in the united states. we have many women who have taken the day off to recognize the role that women play that's so significant in our society. many of us are wearing red to also demonstrate that. so on this day of celebration and solidarity, we are determined to go forward to build on the progress of recent decades, and we rededicate ourselves to achieving respect, equality, and justice for every woman and every community and every country across the globe. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

brown brown -- brown madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, madam president.

i join literally millions of ohioans and tens and tens of millions of americans in my concern about what the house of representatives is trying to do to our health care laws and our health care system. i would leave just one statistic with my colleagues in the senate, and that is that there are in my state alone 200,000, 200,000 people in ohio, my state alone, 200,000 people are now under treatment for opioid opioidaddiction, 200,000 are being treated for opioid addiction. they have insurance. they are able to get this comprehensive treatment because they have insurance under the affordable care act. the legislation apparently coming out of the house of representatives, even though we don't know how much it costs, we know it's a big tax cut for the wealthy, but we don't know how much it costs because they're moving so quickly. it was under wraps and now they're moving it so quickly that they've not even had the

congressional budget office hasn't even had time to look at it and understand what it costs, nor have they been able to tell us how many people will lose insurance of the 22 million americans who have insurance under the affordable care act. they want to move so fast, they're not even answering those basic questions. how much it costs? a lot. how much it's going to add to the deficit? a whole lot but won't be specific. and how many people lose their insurance? but as i s -- as i said 200,000 ohioans today are getting treatment under the affordable care act for opioid addiction and most of them, at least we think half, tens and tens of thousands of them will lose their treatment right in the middle of their treatment for addiction. what do republicans get other than talking points that people who chanted for six years repeal and replace obamacare, never

having any idea how they are going to replace it, still don't to do it right, continue that effort. finally, madam president, what -- the hypocrisy of this where members of congress in the house and senate who enjoy taxpayer financed health insurance -- meaning, the people in this body, most of the comment and women -- congressmen and women have health insurance yet want to take health insurance away from millions of americans -- these are people who have jobs -- millions of americans who have jobs and making relatively low wages, some of them holding two or three part-time jobs, people in congress who have taxpayer-funded health insurance are taking their health insurance away are stripping them from their insurance.

how hypocritical that is. madam president, we should defeat these efforts and continue to make improvements in the affordable care act but not wholesale destruction that will throw hundreds of thousands of ohioans off the insurance they have. my republican president admonished his republican colleagues around the country and in congress not to repeal the affordable care act and throw 900,000 people in ohio off their insurance without a replacement to take care of it. this bill coming from the house is far from an adequate replacement. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i ask that the quorum call be lifted parthe presiding officer. without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. even in its early days, this administration has embarked on a course of foreign private interest entanglements and conflicts of interest that are truly staggering. just this morning the associated press reported that china has granted preliminary approval for 38 new trade marx -- they are -- trademarks, they are trump

trademarks, paving the way for donald trump and his family to, quote, develop a host of branded businesses from hotels and golf clubs to bodyguard and other services. these reports are contained in public documents. all but three are in the president's own nameped and -- own name and the a.p. reports an official as saying that, quote, for all these marks to sail through so quickly and cleanly with no similar marks, no issues with specifications, boy, it's weird. now, the specks is that -- speculation is that these trademarks could not have been issued without approval by the ruling communist party that

higher officials had to be involved and that awareness had to involve their approval for these intellectual property interests. so the benefit is to the president, to his private interests, and the fact of the matter is, the president of the united states should be beholden only to the american people, not to personal profit. but in fact, these trademarks raise the specter that the president possibly is beholden to the approving officials in china, even more than to the american people. that is an issue that merits investigation, and like so many issues arising in this young

administration, the question is who will do that investigation. the lawyers in china representing donald trump applied for these trademarks in april of 2016, even as then candidate donald trump raid against -- railed against china at his campaign rallies criticizing chinese currency manipulation, its intellectual property theft, its attraction of jobs from this country to theirs, and the question arises what has he done about those issues. in fact, china continues to manipulate its currency, continues to attract jobs from this country, and continues its aggressive policies in the area

around that country. so the question is whether an inqiin-- an inquiry is approprie which it seems to be and who will supervise. it's the same question that arises with respect to the russian interference in our electoral system. and the potential ties between trump team officials and the russians who committed those acts. those ties have been established by evidence that is now incontrovertible because it's admitted by the officials themselves. now attorney general jeff sessions and former national security advisor michael flynn. it is now a matter of factual record that russia engaged in a

series of deliberate cyberattacks in order to carry out an unprecedented plot to undermine the 2016 election with the goal of assisting donald trump. the growing body of evidence clearly and unmistakably indicates that trump campaign officials were in contact with russia during the election. these deeply troubling claims of coordination with a foreign government to influence an american election certainly deserve exacting scrutiny and investigation. and the more we learn, the more troubled we become. in fact, we are rapidly careening toward a constitutional crisis. these recent revelations about vladimir putin's government and former national security advisor michael flynn resulted in his

resignation and there have also been details about contact between attorney general sessions, our former colleague, and the russian ambassador that have caused his refusal -- his recusal from all areas of that subject matter. i believe that a special prosecutor must be appointed to investigate the russian interference and meddling in our election and the massive sieber -- cyberattack, misinformation and propaganda campaign conducted to subvert that election. and the potential for cooperation, condoning, connection between the trump officials and russia certainly merits investigation as well.

without reaching conclusions, the special prosecutor ought to investigate and then reach conclusion. his conclusions should be based on fact, not surmise or speculation. for weeks i've called for a special prosecutor to investigate possible ties between members of the trump campaign, the trump transition, and the trump white house to russian officials who sought to interfere with our election. i support the intelligence committee in conducting its investigation. i would favor the appointment of a special commission or a select committee of the congress to do fact finding, make reports, and recommendations in a fully transparent way but only a special prosecutor can take action based on criminal

wrongdoing. only a special prosecutor can pursue violations of criminal law to not only investigate but also bring charges and seek appropriate punishment and remedies. and only the deputy attorney general of the united states can appoint a special prosecutor because the attorney general has recused himself, in other words, taken himself out of all of the areas of this subject matter. and that is why i asked yesterday that the nominee for deputy attorney general rod rosenstein commit to appoint a special prosecutor. now, his answer to me was that he wishes to wait until he's approved by the senate, assuming

confirmation occurs, to decide whether he will appoint a special prosecutor. he claims that he needs to familiarize himself with the facts and circumstances of any ongoing investigation before he can make a decision. with all due respect, the facts he needs to know are already established. they're already a matter of public record. they're already known to the american public. there is an investigation ongoing by the f.b.i. and with good reason into russian meddling in our election, this massive campaign of misinformation and cyberattack that they purposely conducted to influence the outcome of our election. and we know that the justice department must investigate and pursue the ongoing investigation wherever the evidence leads, and

part of that evidence inevitably will be meetings that were conducted by his boss, the attorney general, of the united states jeff sessions which is why the attorney general has recused himself because he could be involved in that investigation as a witness, as a subject, even possibly as a target as could be the president himself. to close that investigation, the deputy attorney general or whoever is conducting it needs to question the attorney general of the united states. to conduct that investigation, that questioning must occur. and so the deputy attorney

general would be expected to be investigating his boss if he decides to conduct that investigation himself, he must appoint a special prosecutor to establish the independence of that inquiry to assure that in reality and in appearance the american public are assured that the investigation is independent, objective, impartial, vigorous, and fair. the facts that war rantsz a special -- that warrant a special prosecutor are already known and they are already a matter of public record. and that is why i believe he must commit himself now before his confirmation. in fact, as a condition of his confirmation to take that action which serves the credibility and public confidence in the

department of justice that he observed very eloquently in his confirmation hearing as one of his central objectives. there's a lot of precedent for this step. the most prominent one perhaps is elliot richardson when he was the attorney general designee and he was requested by the judiciary committee at that time to make the same kind of commitment, and he did. and he kept his promise. he appointed archibald cox to be the special prosecutor, and the watergate scandal was appropriately investigated and pursued. that example when elliot rich clardson had enough -- elliot richardson had enough facts just as rod rosenstein does now, ought to be the lone star here.

it ought to be the model for his commitment to appointing a special prosecutor. the simple fact is rod rosenstein, like elliot richardson, knows everything he needs to know to be sure a special prosecutor is necessary. and especially because he is a career prosecutor with a distinguished record and because he has that intellect and integrity that would qualify him probably to be confirmed, he should know that it is the right thing to do. and maybe he will do it if he is confirmed, but it would serve the interest of justice and it would help to sustain and enhance the trust and public confidence in the department of justice if he were to do it now, as elliot richardson did many

years ago. we live in an extraordinary ti time. the conflicts of interest and foreign entanglements that threaten our nation beginning at the very top of this administration impose a unique mandate on the department of justice. the recusal of the attorney general from this investigation indicate that leadership and integrity are necessary at every level as never before, and that is why in this extraordinary time, i urge that the deputy attorney general nominee rod rosenstein do the right thing and make sure there is an investigation that is independent and vigorous as well

as fair and full and that we know all of the facts eventually and that action is taken appropriately to deal with the russian interference in our election, the potential ties between the trump administration before and after the election in those improper interference by the russians in our election, and that the danger of coverup indicated by the potential false statements made by jeff sessions before the judiciary committee and michael flynn elsewhere be stopped before it starts. only a special prosecutor can provide the unbiased and fair answers that are so urgently needed. the american people deserve an explanation. they deserve an explanation for

the trademarks that have been issued to donald trump in china. they deserve an explanation by a special prosecutor on the russian meddling and trump ties to that meddling, whether the independent and special prosecutor broadens the scope of that investigation to include the entanglements or conflicts of interest involving china is a question that will have to be addressed by that official. but this much we know now. we are rapidly careening toward a constitutional crisis, a crisis of credibility as well as legal challenge and